The sad thing is...
.. there are some idiots out there who would actually waste their vote on him.
Julian AssangeTM has proven yet again the international media's inability to use Google, generating a media flurry by re-announcing his intention to seek a Senate seat in Australia's 2013 election. The holed-up fugitive’s “me-for-the-Senate” plan, announced in March 2012 – nine months ago – got repeated in an interview and …
"Sorry but I have this image that if Assange were somehow elected, he would end up having a screen with his face and a camera where he would sit.
So as he rots in the Ecuadorian Embassy, he can still be a member of the Aussie govt."
Well yes: He wouldn't be able to do a half-decent job in an elected role nor be able to talk to 'his' people.
Which just illustrates what an egotistical self-serving tosser he is. Standing for government SHOULD mean that you want to serve the people of your country and strive to do it well. In Julian's case it's because he wants to jerk himself off some more to another photo of himself on the front of a newspaper.
It's gonna take one hell of a telepresence set up for him to pull that off.
Yup. Just the ego alone will add gigabits to the streaming requirements..
As for leaving under *any* sort of pre-text, I think he has managed to piss off enough people to make that a nigh impossibility (but, by exception, probably the one fantastically entertaining TV even he's capable of).
"....Wonder if he's doing it so he can then try and get sent a diplomatic passport se he can safely leave?" Merely being a senator would not qualify him for a diplomatic passport, nor would it make him immune to prosecution either here in the UK or in Sweden. All Julia Gillard has to do is let him fight the Greens out of contention, then if A$$nut does win a seat she merely waits three months during which A$$nut is stuck in either a cell in the UK, a cell in Sweden, or the Ecuadorean Embassy, then she can declare the seat vacant and appoint a new senator in A$$nut's place.
And then there is the question of whether A$$nut meets the requirements for eligibility - he hasn't been a resident since 2007 which would seem to be a lot longer than the three years allowed under voting rules.
There's nothing wrong with the OP's comment apart from the final (and I expect, for conviction.)
Innocent unless proven guilty, yes, but you can see how some are developing suspicions (if not making their mind up entirely) given the efforts that seem to be expended avoiding going to Sweden?
You've already decided the man's guilty. You know, "men" like you make me sick.
1 - apart from the expressed wish at the end it's all factual statements, and an expression of dislike/wish is a perfectly acceptable route to stating an opinion.
2 - based on verifiable information available (read: minus the hyperbole and the, umm, "creative" interpretation) and laws as they stand internationally, the wish is likely to become true. Even ignoring everything else (that's a large lot to ignore, admittedly, but let's go on just one fact at a time), Assange™ broke bail in the UK and (apart from pissing off the people who -possibly foolishly- put up his bail) that single fact is enough for jail time.
3 - swap out the name Assange™ with the name of anyone else and go through the facts again: yup. Makes no difference.
4 - gullible idiots make this farce last much longer than it deserves.
"You've already decided the man's guilty. You know, "men" like you make me sick."
No: He said he's a rape SUSPECT and a fugitive from justice. He is, Stephen. And if the truth makes you sick, then I'll pass you a bag, but you can get someone else to hold your hair back for you.
I don't actually give a flying F3ck about the original charges now: He's a pathetic whimpering coward who was quite happy to accept the hospitality of my country, but hasn't got the decency to obey the same laws as the rest of us, and sits there slagging the place off while evading arrest and media-whoring. He's a fugitive who is costing me money, not some white knight of freedom.
Why, oh why would Aussies vote for this guy? Assuming that his legal troubles end tomorrow, the guy seems to be a first-class narcissist, with a record of alienating those he works with and even wasting the money of those who believed in him enough to put up his bail with the British courts.
A) self-absorbed instead of public-spirited
B) mercurial instead of consistent and understandable
C) paranoid instead of confident
I bet that IF he wins, AND if his legal position allows him to serve, he will pull a Sarah Palin and not even finish his term in office before he goes chasing after some other bright and shiny object. And if he does serve he's going to be on the outside of the Aussie Senate and produce about as much legislation and policy as dead tree stump.
There are a number of reasons why Australians might vote for him. Some because they think it's funny (the same reason the Australian Sex Party does surprisingly well), some because they wish to express disapproval of Australia's close ties to the US (e.g. the decision to base US marines at Darwin did not go down well with some), some because it's just their way of saying "fuck you" to the man, and some because they believe he may do some good.
If he did get elected, it would most likely be at the cost of a Green senate seat.
Frankly I can't see it happening unless he somehow returns to Australia, or manages to otherwise convince the Australian Electoral Authority that he is a permanent resident (a requirement, and possibly difficult at the moment).
Why, oh why would Aussies vote for this guy?
With the reasons you gave me it made me realise that there is actually possibly another country where he could do well if the impossible happened: Italy. He strikes me as the perfect partner for Berlusconi, apart from that I don't quite know what happens if you put two attention seekers with massive egos in the same room. You probably need a high ceiling to start with.
My proble is that I *like* both Oz and Italy - I wouldn't want to inflict this idiot on anyone. Having said that, judging by the sale of his book most of the public has his measure by now (oh, sorry, silly me, I used *facts* again - that's going to upset his supporters™).
He may be able to register as an overseas *elector*, but I don't see how he can be an overseas *candidate*.
...tho' thinking about the hundreds of UK nomination submissions I've supervised I can't actually think of any part of the process that requires the physical presence of the candidate. As long as their signiture is on the papers, that's all they (the candidate) needs to do.
shot, hung or otherwise silenced
Why martyr him? Just investigate what he has been accused of. It's reasonable to assume there is something to the Swedish accusations, because that's the only real reason I can come up with that would justify his fanatic fighting not to face the investigation. The rest is BS that has been disproved enough times not to waste any time on it.
What I like is that he's made it certain he's going to be locked up somewhere for a while: the stunt in the UK took care of that. If he really thinks that laws are only written for other people I think it's time he acted on that assumption and gave himself up.
It was a good idea he trained himself to live in small places. He's going to need that..
And who is paying the cost of making sure he remains holed up in 'Ecuador'. After all, the cost of having one or two of our 'finest' standing outside on watch, and having a bag/car/van/lorry/helicoptor/plane on standby ready to dispose of the body......er....extradite him, doesn't come cheap.
These one night stands are costing this country a lot of money.
IANAL but by my reading I don't believe Julian Assange is eligible to be elected. The requirements are set out here:
In particular I think he fails criteria 3 under Candidates, which states "an elector entitled to vote or a person qualified to become an elector."
After you've been non-resident in Australia for too long you are automatically removed from the roll. You can only apply to be an 'eligible overseas elector' within three years of becoming non-resident. Assange has been gone for so long I think he must have been removed from the electoral roll and could not get back on it without returning to Australia to live. As such I think he is neither an elector entitled to vote, nor a person qualified to become an elector.
I could easily see this going to court for a decision.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019